Maximum997
Squire
Yep. You are right.
Bit in the game cavalry bow, that is better then longbow, will be kinda OP.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
The Noble Longbow
- 主题发起人 Cri11e
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Squire
Bit in the game cavalry bow, that is better then longbow, will be kinda OP.
SissiJaeger
Recruit
Well mongol composite bows and yuan dynasty era bows were superior compared to longbow.
karijus
Regular
Why not compare longbow to a balista at this point lol.
You need a giant freaking cranequin just to load the thing and it takes like 10 minutes.
Though I sure wouldn't mind if they added something like this to the game.
You mean what have video game about Medieval kingdoms have to do with crossbows? ...if you have to ask that then you play wrong game.
I posted a video about a crossbow that has a better energy transfer system, So yes, the crossbow when made for power with a composite bow instead of steel with a bigger bolt, arms and longer acceleration space, where it isnt a pure loss, as with most low-power crossbows with huge draw weights.
you have a video of inefficient 1250 lb steel crossbows versus essentially a siege crossbow, of 1250 lb (570kg) draw weight. It sure is heavy but still man portable at 11,4kg. 350-480 J of kinetic energy isnt bad at all.
160 lb - 72,64 kg draw weight managed some 122 J.
What do you have to say ?
The longbow idol got smacked hard lol. Hruza des
最后编辑:
I posted a video about a crossbow that has a better energy transfer system, So yes, the crossbow when made for power with a composite bow instead of steel with a bigger bolt, arms and longer acceleration space, where it isnt a pure loss, as with most low-power crossbows with huge draw weights.
you have a video of inefficient 1250 lb steel crossbows versus essentially a siege crossbow, of 1250 lb (570kg) draw weight. It sure is heavy but still man portable at 11,4kg. 350-480 J of kinetic energy isnt bad at all.
160 lb - 72,64 kg draw weight managed some 122 J.
What do you have to say ?
No crossbow have more efficient energy transfer then longbow. Composite bows on crossbows were still very small with small draw lengths. Moreover they were relatively light ones. They switched to steel because they could not make composite crossbows any more powerful.
Maximum997
Squire
It is +- pistol shot energy
yes, but the bolts themselves were some 13 mm or 0,50 inch in diameter, (or more ?)so terminal effect will be different. A pistol bullet has way less mass. So I wouldnt want to underestimate its effect by just staying with kinetic energy only. Smaller mass means it is easier to stop or something right ? Momentum ? Im no physicist btw.
最后编辑:
youre arguing with yourself. I said, the crossbow in the video is from 1300s+ and its bolts have 3x-4x the power compared to big longbow arrows. Cant get through the thick skull or something ?
so the crossbow shown has 570 kg draw weight, has 1,5 m bow when straight. Has long, thick bolt. So, to enlighten you, its energy loss is much smaller than small bows of other crossbows and the big composite bow is what gives it ability to flex, making it much more powerful on the bolt end with same draw weigtht.
Such a crossbow might actually be able to penetrate some plate armor at some ranges. Short steel bow ? Hardly so.
Maximum997
Squire
Depends on bullet type.
Any bullet has stopping power. It is how much energy he can deliver to enemy. For example AKM 7,62*39 has not good stoping power becouse bullets just fly through body and most of energy gone. He has a hole in the body, he bleeds, but he still can act. For good stopping power bullet should stay in the body and deviler all energy.
But with that thing all energy will be devilered. It will just smash your bones and vital organs.
M43 cartridge doesnt do tubling well
Some ppl prefer it to lightweight ones like 5,45 though. Still no x54R. M43 muzzle energy is some 2kJ right. Ok thanks for the stopping power thing, or I guess, how well the projectile gives its energy to target.And I think you got a typo there, with the deliverance thingy
Rampant crossbow, not crossbow. A siege weapon. Your thin scull have missed that part. You can as well compare longbow to a balisa.
WOOP WOOP
Hold your horses there good sir!
Mongolian composite bows have historically shot over 500m and hit a target. And also the warbows mongols used were around 100-157lb depending on the actual bow and user.
As you can see in my post, I stated a recurve bow of comparable size as a longbow would far out perform it. But they weren't made for this purpose. Can we give each modern infantryman a light machine gun? Sure we can, but the main purpose we want for those troops is mobility and ease of use. So prior to tackling the statement I have to state the following for clarification:
-=-=-= In your statement are you referring to a recurve bow that HAS the power of a 100-120lbs single piece warbow? Or are you claiming that the recurve bow was of 100-120lbs poundage? A recurve bow of 80 lbs of poundage HAS the potential energy of a 100+lbs war bow. Not only that, it can be shot consistently.
A recurve bow a massive 120lbs translate into far greater power, and this is far far more difficult to shoot consistently on horseback.
IF the statement you made was alluding to the former (comparable transferable energy), then we are agreeing and I dont really know what you are disagreeing on me about.
IF the statement was in relation to the latter idea then I dare say it isn't accurate. Bare with me and I can explain. I recall the paper " Buried with his bow and arrows: The exceptional cave burial of a 14th century". Mongolian Warbows were most often found in the 100lbs potential range, you could find some in the 120lbs. But mostly, 100lbs or below. Potential to store energy, and actual draw weight are two different things. Again, a well made and oiled up recurve bow of 80lbs of draw weight, has the energy on release as a warbow considerably bigger than itself.
But given their main goal wasn't stopping power, but mobility. Anything larger than 100lbs on horseback would become less simple to use. Again, that isn't to say larger bows couldn't be used. I can't remember the source, but I can agree with you as much as saying that riders did carry secondary bows of far greater power and size, if they had to shoot dismounted. Honestly though I don't recall this piece of detail.
Moving on though, as any archer can varify, at some point you need your body firmly planted on the ground to draw the string if the warbow gets too large, if you wish to capitalize on the bow's qualities. using a 120lb bow on horseback serves no purpose if you half pull and release a few dozen arrows. Poundage exceed 120lbs would then require , on horseback, a single arm without much use of back muscle, stable ground where your feet are planted and forward arm can be locked to draw 120lbs consistently and quickly. Thus, we can assume this wasn't anywhere common.
Finally though, how can we make this assumption? Poundage of merely 100lbs or above, throughout a shooters lifespan deforms the joints of the stabilizing arm. Producing an obvious enlarged larger bones. These warbows used in the west were simple warbows, made of one piece of material. So their potential energy and draw weight are comparable.
Deformation such as those found in Europe, are not found very commonly on Asian soldiers. This fact alone tells us the average soldier in Asia did not shoot anything closely resembling a 100lb bow. Regardless of assumptions or competitions (which do not have the same toll on the body and a nation's logistical system to wage war) we can conclude that asian warbows were not closed to 100lbs+ draw weight, as their bodies of the same species as their European cousins, did not suffer/enjoy of enlargement/deformations of their stabilizing arm.
!!! Can their bows hit far, yes. Were their arrows lighter? Yes, Were their arrows standardize, no; many were self made or scavenged. But their objective wasn't to have a cannon on horseback, their main tactic was feinting and attack from far closer range.
i.e: can I shoot a handgun over 200 yards...technically yes, but that isn't what is designed to do.
!!! I have never in all of my years, heard of a recurve bow on horse back exceeding 120lbs for a rider as standard military practice.This one I am legitimately curious about, more about its design and training regiment.As I have explained above the mere basis of biological markers found in European bowman when using warbows that exceeded 100lbs-120lbs demonstrates Asian bowman did not use the same poundage, nowhere near close. So if you have that info, please let me eat it up. After all this is my bread and butter.
Maximum997
Squire
In some turkish museum there was a lot of bows, and they was around 120 if i remember right. But i guess that was bows of some noble guys.
I dont think that mongolians had problems to do anything on a horseback.
That guys srart to train a bow and riding before walking.They was really amazing.
I guess only reason why they didnt take whole europe was their political system that caused a lot of problems after Monkge khans death.(Yes game of thrones season 8, thats why chosen king was a bad idea, holy roman empire can proove it too)
最后编辑:
it is not rampant though.
A man-portable crossbow. You have experts who make 570 kilo draw weight crossbows and tell how crossbows were weak and cant penetrate armor. This one is larger but is big but its got a still smaller bow than longbows. And still, 570 kilo draw weight.
all steel bows that I saw have limited movement so it makes me think composite bows werent very easy or cheap to make. Steel does rust if not protected. Should anyone want to come to a castle, I would guess crossbows of this type would be very useful, both for attack and defense, from behind a pavise, or walls. Pavise wasnt just a piece of wood btw. Steel bows make for a rather simple and reliable weapon that likely doesnt explode in your face.
When you look ingame, looters shoot rocks from their hands at about 40 m/s.
And long bow video had 80 gram missile velocity of about 55 m/s or so. Even the siege crossbow depending on bolt 220-350gram didnt exceed 60 m/s.
Ingame, I tried Noble bow, which imo is superior, or a fast horse, Together with need for speed horse edition, riding about 200 and archery some 180 or so, I managed something like 105-115 m/s missile speed. (circa 325 m/s is sound barrier)
Real speed of 50-60 m/s is 180 km/h to 216 km/h
Ingame speed of 105-115 m/s, translates to 378-414 km/h.
Wow the arguments got way out of wack.
The simple information is:
Crossbows used in mass weren't better than some of the stronger bows, rather they were easier to make and took very little training to use effectively. I am talking about those most commonly used, not obscure siege crossbows with 1500lb pulls, requiring a which to draw. Those types had very limited uses in general line of battle stuff. Further, crossbows, even the lighter, more common types took a lot longer to load and fire than a bow so any army equipped with crossbows had to deal with its limited rate of fire.
On the other hand, bows took much more training to be used effectively. Not only where they harder to aim but you had to develop the strength to actually draw the bow. This could take years and could severally reduce the number of lets call them "Heavy Bowmen" an army could field. Consequently, there were a lot relatively low powered bows made to be used by the masses with little training. However, they weren't very effective because they weren't strong enough to penetrate armor.
So end of day, stronger, more powerful crossbows that could be somewhat effective against armor, while requiring very little training to use, kind of won out over the bow despite their rate of fire. They were just superior to a trying to employ a weapons system that took 10 years to mature and could only be employed in limited numbers. This did not mean that a good longbow or some of the more impressive composite shortbows were outclassed by crossbows in fact everything I have seen shows they were of comparable power to crossbows while having a much superior rate of fire.
The simple information is:
Crossbows used in mass weren't better than some of the stronger bows, rather they were easier to make and took very little training to use effectively. I am talking about those most commonly used, not obscure siege crossbows with 1500lb pulls, requiring a which to draw. Those types had very limited uses in general line of battle stuff. Further, crossbows, even the lighter, more common types took a lot longer to load and fire than a bow so any army equipped with crossbows had to deal with its limited rate of fire.
On the other hand, bows took much more training to be used effectively. Not only where they harder to aim but you had to develop the strength to actually draw the bow. This could take years and could severally reduce the number of lets call them "Heavy Bowmen" an army could field. Consequently, there were a lot relatively low powered bows made to be used by the masses with little training. However, they weren't very effective because they weren't strong enough to penetrate armor.
So end of day, stronger, more powerful crossbows that could be somewhat effective against armor, while requiring very little training to use, kind of won out over the bow despite their rate of fire. They were just superior to a trying to employ a weapons system that took 10 years to mature and could only be employed in limited numbers. This did not mean that a good longbow or some of the more impressive composite shortbows were outclassed by crossbows in fact everything I have seen shows they were of comparable power to crossbows while having a much superior rate of fire.
Bow reloads faster, but at the same time its 100 times harder to aim and hit the target. You can only aim for a very short time, staying tall in front of the enemy. It's only good against poorly armored troops charging at you, so archers can fire volley after volley in general direction of the enemy and score some random hits.
Gaffe lever crossbow takes a few seconds to reload, its not that slow. And important thing is, you can calmly aim a crossbow from behind a cover, any time you want. Which obviously increases accuracy and decreases casualties.
Gaffe lever crossbow takes a few seconds to reload, its not that slow. And important thing is, you can calmly aim a crossbow from behind a cover, any time you want. Which obviously increases accuracy and decreases casualties.
最后编辑:
That thing might be man portable, but rampants aren't. It's oversized crossbow made for firing from a rampant of a fortification. You can look how he pulls the string back in another video on his channel, that mechanism is not portable either. You can also make downsized bow, plant it from the castle wall and use some mechanism to pull it. With crossbows it just more practical from a mechanical point of view. When people started to make oversized bows for siege warfare, they ended up with things like balista.
SissiJaeger
Recruit
Mongolian bows had heavy war arrows which they could shoot at longer distances than longbow.
Mongolian warbows were almost as heavy poundage as longbows. They had average draw weight of 120lb. https://books.google.nl/books?id=JtOqIc9t2qsC&pg=PP14&lpg=PP14&dq=historical+mongol+166+pounds&source=bl&ots=gucLIbp0tq&sig=3x2QvenOSU_2-Fg9o157GShQhgg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nCHqUpXEK6XT0QXblYCYCw#v=onepage&q=166 pounds&f=false
Also the arrows they used could penetrate armor on distance.
English longbow werent the most efficient, powerfull and did not have the longest shooting distance. I dont know why british or longbowfans cant understand this. They used warbows with war arrows while shooting in distance. http://www.atarn.org/mongolian/mongol_1.htm
Mongols could have not conquered the largest empire in the world if the mongol/yuan bows would not have been able to pierce armor.
Also composite bow is way different in draw than longbow(I shoot traditional bows myself).
I have my proof here.
Do you have any proof or are you just making assumptions?
由板主最后编辑:
